United States: TCEH Bankruptcy: SDNY Transfers Delaware Trust Company V. Wilmington Trust N.A. Intercreditor Dispute To Delaware Bankruptcy Court, Reaffirming Broad View Of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction - Update

Last Updated: November 9 2015
Article by Mark C. Ellenberg, Michele C. Maman, Ivan Loncar, Ellen Halstead, Thomas Curtin and Howard R. Hawkins, Jr.

Most Read Contributor in United States, August 2018

In Delaware Trust Company v. Wilmington Trust N.A., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently denied plaintiff 's motion to remand the case back to New York state court, and granted defendants' motion to transfer the case to the District of Delaware, from where it will be referred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The authors of this article discuss the case and its implications.

In an action arising from the huge TCEH Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in Delaware Trust Company v. Wilmington Trust N.A.1 denying plaintiff 's motion to remand the case back to New York state court, and granting defendants' motion to transfer the case to the District of Delaware, from where it will be referred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

The issue before the district court was whether a New York court, or the Delaware Bankruptcy Court where the Chapter 11 cases of Texas Competitive Electric Holdings LLC and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "TCEH") are pending, should resolve an intercreditor dispute regarding how to allocate the debtor's monthly adequate protection payments among its creditors. Resolution of this issue by Judge Engelmayer turned largely on whether the dispute over the allocation methodology for the payments is considered a "core" proceeding within the underlying TCEH Chapter 11 cases (i.e., one that either "arises under" or "arises in" the bankruptcy proceeding). The district court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants and decided that the matter is indeed core, thereby warranting that the case be properly heard by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. If a dispute "arises under" or "arises in" the ongoing bankruptcy proceeding, it must be transferred to the bankruptcy court overseeing the bankruptcy case. 2

The decision is important because it reaffirms the often challenged principle that contractual disputes between creditors may qualify as "core" proceedings in circumstances where, as here, the underlying dispute could only arise in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding.

BACKGROUND

In April 2014, TCEH filed for Chapter 11 protection in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. TCEH's bankruptcy case is one of the largest bankruptcy cases in United States history with a capital structure consisting of over $25 billion of first lien debt, including:

(i) $22.6 billion of debt outstanding under a credit agreement (the "Bank Debt"),

(ii) $1.75 billion of debt outstanding under a first lien indenture (the "First Lien Notes"); and

(iii) $1.255 billion of debt outstanding under first lien interest rate swap and commodity hedge agreements (the "First Lien Swaps" and together with the First Lien Notes and Bank Debt, the "First Lien Obligations").

Each of the First Lien Obligations rank pari passu and have a lien on substantially all of TCEH's assets. In connection with the issuance of the First Lien Obligations, TCEH and holders of the First Lien Obligations in 2007 entered into an Intercreditor Agreement, which contained a permissive New York choice of forum clause, and in certain circumstances governs the rights and priorities of the holders of the First Lien Obligations with respect to their collateral. 3

Shortly after filing its Chapter 11 petition, TCEH filed a motion seeking authorization to use cash collateral. As part of that motion, TCEH requested authorization to provide adequate protection to the holders of the First Lien Obligations, as compensation for the diminution in value of their collateral during the Chapter 11 case. On June 6, 2014, the bankruptcy court entered a cash collateral order, which provided that each of the holders of the First Lien Obligations would: "receive from the TCEH Debtors their ratable share" of the aggregate amount of monthly adequate protection payments. 4 Under the express terms of the order, each creditor's ratable share is calculated based on the proportion of the First Lien Obligations owing as of the petition date. Accordingly, post-petition interest is not included in the calculation of each creditor's ratable share.

At the June 2014 hearing for the cash collateral order, Aurelius Capital Management, a first lien noteholder, argued that the Intercreditor Agreement requires that each first lien creditor's ratable share of the adequate protection payments must be calculated on a rolling monthly basis to include post-petition interest (the "Post-Petition Calculation"). Aurelius also contended that the calculation of each creditor's pro rata share of adequate protection payments would be a precursor to distributions made under TCEH's plan. Ultimately, the parties agreed to include in the cash collateral order a holdback mechanism, wherein the difference between (A) the petition date allocation calculation and (B) the amounts that the noteholders would otherwise receive under the Post-Petition Calculation included is deducted from the swap counterparties and lenders' monthly adequate protection payments. Such amounts were to be held in escrow pending a resolution of the intercreditor dispute.

On March 13, 2015, Delaware Trust Company, as indenture trustee for the First Lien Notes, filed a complaint in New York state court againstWilmington Trust N.A, in its capacity as collateral agent and administrative agent, seeking (i) a declaration that under the intercreditor agreement post-petition interest had to be included in calculating each creditor's ratable share of past and future adequate protection payments and (ii) specific performance releasing the holdback amounts to the plaintiff. Shortly thereafter, Morgan Stanley and J. Aron, holders of the First Lien Swaps moved to intervene in the litigation, and the administrative agent removed the case to federal court.

The plaintiff then moved to remand the case to New York state court on the grounds that the action was a non-core contractual dispute that would not have any impact on TCEH's bankruptcy case. The plaintiff argued that a federal court would lack subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the dispute, or at a minimum, should be required to abstain from resolving the dispute. The administrative agent and intervenor defendants subsequently cross-moved to transfer the case to the Delaware Bankruptcy Court on the grounds that (i) the resolution of the dispute would require an interpretation of federal bankruptcy law (including whether post-petition interest would even be permissible under the Bankruptcy Code) and (ii) the dispute did not exist independently from the bankruptcy case. The defendants therefore argued that remand would be inappropriate, as the action was a "core" dispute that arose in TCEH's Chapter 11 case.

THE COURT'S DECISION

The district court concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction because in the context of bankruptcy proceedings, a federal court has jurisdiction over all civil proceedings arising under Title 11, or arising in or related to cases under Title 11. Here, the district court held that the action arose in TCEH's Chapter 11 case for several reasons.

First, the district court found that the action had no practical existence but for the bankruptcy proceedings. Specifically, the intercreditor dispute over the adequate protection payments could only have arisen in the context of the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings because the concept of adequate protection derives from the Bankruptcy Code. The district court found it telling that while the parties had been signatories to the Intercreditor Agreement since 2007, no dispute emerged until TCEH's bankruptcy filing. Thus, the entire dispute— which centered on the right to receive adequate protection payments—would have no existence but for the bankruptcy case, and therefore such claims could only "arise in" the bankruptcy case.

Second, the district court held that the dispute was core because it would affect the allocation of the Debtors' property, and the allocation of the Debtors' property is a core bankruptcy function. Here, the district court found that the action would affect the allocation of TCEH's property because the plaintiff 's complaint explicitly sought a declaration and specific performance that all future monthly adequate protection payments be allocated using the Post- Petition Calculation. According to the district court, the plaintiff 's request for prospective relief would unavoidably impact TCEH's property and on that basis is a core proceeding.

Third, the district court rejected and labeled as misleading plaintiff 's argument that an intercreditor contract dispute cannot be a core proceeding, and that what was at issue was a rather routine contract action involving a pre-bankruptcy contract. Relying on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision in In re U.S. Lines, Inc.5 and the Southern District of New York's decision in In re Extended Stay,6 the court noted that a contractual dispute between creditors may be core where the dispute is not independent of the reorganization, meaning it is either (i) the type of proceeding that is unique to or uniquely affected by the bankruptcy proceedings or (ii) the type of proceeding that would directly affect a core bankruptcy function. The district court concluded that the dispute over the adequate protection payments at play in this case was not independent of TCEH's bankruptcy case because the dispute emerged in the bankruptcy proceedings, and was intertwined with them.

In particular, the court concluded that the dispute was "uniquely affected by" TCEH's bankruptcy because Aurelius previously admitted that disputes over allocations made under the Intercreditor Agreement would be intertwined with the plan confirmation process. According to the district court, Aurelius' prior statements in the bankruptcy case suggested "that the resolution of this present allocation dispute will have sequellae in the bankruptcy proceedings." 7 Moreover, the district court also found that the action appeared likely to affect a core bankruptcy function, including whether to confirm TCEH's plan of reorganization. Consequently, the district court held that although the action did concern the interpretation of a contract, the dispute was core because it arose from and was intertwined with the broader bankruptcy and plan confirmation process.

Fourth, the court found that the action was core because the dispute potentially would require a court to consider the interaction between the Intercreditor Agreement and bankruptcy law. By way of example, the court noted that the Post-Petition Calculation could potentially conflict with Section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that post-petition interest is to no longer accrue unless secured creditors are oversecured. Likewise, the district court found that whether the monthly adequate protection payments qualified as "Collateral or any proceeds thereof " (as such term is used in the Intercreditor Agreement) may hinge on an interpretation of the cash collateral order and the Bankruptcy Code.

Because the district court determined that the action was core, it therefore found that the plaintiff 's request for mandatory abstention was moot. In addition, the court held that permissive abstention was inappropriate because the interests of efficiency and economy strongly favored a comprehensive "one-stop shop" resolution of the dispute in the bankruptcy proceeding. Finally, the court granted the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the Delaware bankruptcy court on the grounds that:

(i) the action could have been brought in Delaware;

(ii) the interests of justice would be served by transferring the case given that the dispute was interrelated with the bankruptcy case; and

(iii) a transfer would be convenient for all of the parties.

The district court thus indicated that the matter should be heard by a judge who is intimately familiar with the facts, issues, and entities of the bankruptcy generally, and with the facts of the dispute specifically.

CONCLUSION

Judge Engelmayer's decision in Delaware Trust reaffirms the broad scope of bankruptcy jurisdiction, even in instances where the underlying dispute is between creditors and based on the interpretation of a prepetition contract. Where, as in Delaware Trust, the action is intertwined with the bankruptcy case, a court may conclude that a contractual dispute between creditors is a core proceeding. This decision may also potentially impact another pending TCEH intercreditor dispute commenced in New York by Marathon Asset Management, which also seeks an interpretation of the same Intercreditor Agreement at issue in Delaware Trust, and where there is likewise a dispute over bankruptcy jurisdiction. 8 It remains to be seen whether SDNY Judge Analisa Torres, presiding over the Marathon action, will be persuaded by Judge Engelmayer's decision and find that the dispute in that case would also most appropriately be decided in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.

Footnotes

1. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP represents Morgan Stanley Capital Group in TCEH's Chapter 11 case, as well as in its capacity as an intervenor defendant in the Delaware Trust litigation.

2. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b), 1412.

3. Wilmington Trust N.A. is the successor collateral agent under the Intercreditor Agreement, and is also the administrative agent for the Bank Debt.

4. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., et. al., Case No. 14-10979 (Dkt. 855).

5. 197 F.3d 631 (2d Cir. 1999).

6. 435 B.R. 139 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

7. Delaware Trust Company v. Wilmington Trust N.A., 15-cv-02883-PAE (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2015).

8. Marathon Asset Mgmt., LP v. Wilmington Trust, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-04727 (AT)(AJP) (S.D.N.Y.).

Previously published in Pratt’s Journal Of Bankruptcy Law

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions